Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 60 references

Equivariant trisections for group actions on four-manifolds

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A finite group acting smoothly on a closed orientable 4-manifold always admits a G-equivariant trisection that places any invariant surface in equivariant bridge position, and the entire equivariant topology is encoded by a 2-dimensional…

desk verdict The paper delivers a real new framework—equivariant trisections with an explicit existence theorem—but the diagrammatic reduction has a proof gap: uniqueness theorems are used to assert existence of the 4D fillings. Fixable, but needs attention. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.17999 v1 pith:VFAGWCR2 submitted 2025-01-29 math.GT

Jeffrey Meier , Evan Scott This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.GT MSC 57K4057S17
keywords equivarianttrisectionbridge4-manifoldsfinitegroupactionsshadowdiagramslinearlypartedlowgenusclassificationsurface-links
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces G-equivariant trisections, a group-symmetric version of trisections of 4-manifolds, and proves that every smooth finite group action on a closed orientable 4-manifold admits one, with any prescribed invariant surface placed in equivariant bridge position. The key structural claim is that an equivariant (bridge) trisection is completely determined, up to equivariant diffeomorphism, by the action on its 3-dimensional spine; consequently the whole 4-dimensional equivariant topology of a G-manifold pair is encoded in a 2-dimensional G-invariant shadow diagram on the central surface. The paper also gives a quotient theorem, constructs many examples including branched covers and linear actions on familiar manifolds, and classifies equivariant trisections in low genus. A reader should care because this reduces questions about finite group actions on 4-manifolds to finite diagram combinatorics, and it connects long-standing problems, such as linearity of cyclic actions, to the existence of low-genus equivariant trisections.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the G-equivariant trisection: a decomposition X = X1 ∪ X2 ∪ X3 into invariant 4-dimensional 1-handlebodies, each equipped with a linearly parted action, meaning the action is built from equivariant handles on which G acts linearly, with pairwise intersections in invariant 3-dimensional handlebodies Hi and common central surface Σ. The spine is H1 ∪ H2 ∪ H3. The key mechanism is linear parting: it makes the sectors rigid enough that an equivariant extension theorem for handlebody fillings, proved in the companion paper, applies, so a G-diffeomorphism of spines extends to the entire trisection. The 2-dimensional shadow diagram records the spine on Σ: each handlebody is encoded by a G-invariant cut-system, and each bridge tangle by G-invariant shadow arcs; Proposition 3.20 converts such a diagram into a unique equivariant (bridge) trisection.

What would settle it

Construct two G-equivariant (bridge) trisections of a closed G-manifold whose spines are G-diffeomorphic but which are not G-diffeomorphic as trisections; this would directly contradict Theorems 3.16 and 3.17. A more microscopic test is to find a linearly parted G-action on a 4-dimensional 1-handlebody with two non-G-diffeomorphic fillings of the same boundary pair, which would falsify the companion paper's Theorem 4.1(2) or 5.9(2) on which the argument rests.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the equivariant topology of a smooth finite group action on a closed orientable 4-manifold is controlled by the action on a 3-dimensional spine: any G-diffeomorphism of spines extends uniquely, up to G-diffeomorphism, to a G-diffeomorphism of the whole trisected manifolds, and the same holds for bridge-trisected invariant surfaces. This reduces the 4-dimensional problem to 2-dimensional data: a G-invariant shadow diagram on the central surface, consisting of cut-systems and shadow arcs, determines a unique equivariant (bridge) trisection, and every such trisection arises this way. The existence theorem is proved by taking an equivariant triangulation and decomposing each 4-simplex in a fully symmetric way into three sectors that glue to a trisection; the bridge position of invariant surfaces comes from the same construction. Applications include a criterion for when the quotient of an equivariant trisection is an equivariant trisection, a proof that genus-zero and genus-one equivariant trisections are geometric, and a partial classification in genus two.

Load-bearing premise

The reduction to spines and to shadow diagrams assumes the equivariant extension theorem of the companion paper is correct; if that theorem fails, two equivariant trisections with identical spines could differ genuinely in dimension four.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If a G-action on the spine of an equivariant (bridge) trisection is given, there is exactly one equivariant (bridge) trisection up to G-diffeomorphism realizing it (Theorem 3.17).
  • Every G-equivariant (bridge) trisection is encoded by a G-invariant shadow diagram on the central surface, and G-diffeomorphic diagrams yield G-diffeomorphic trisections (Proposition 3.20).
  • The quotient of an equivariant trisection by a normal subgroup is an equivariant trisection exactly when the quotient manifold is smooth; this condition is equivalent to stabilizers acting as rotation groups (Theorem 5.1).
  • All group actions admitting genus-zero or genus-one equivariant trisections are geometric, and strongly minimal and maximally symmetric genus-two equivariant trisections are classified (Corollary 7.10 and Theorem 7.12).
  • Surfaces in equivariant bridge position give diagrammatic presentations of invariant surface-links, including fixed-point sets, whose quotient properties can be read off from the diagram (Corollary 5.3).

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The passage from spines to 2D diagrams suggests an algorithmic route: any finite group action on a trisection surface that preserves the cut-systems gives a genuine equivariant trisection, so one can hunt for new group actions by drawing symmetric diagrams.
  • Because the paper's uniqueness holds up to equivariant diffeomorphism and not equivariant isotopy, a natural next step would be to test whether the obstruction to isotopy identified in the companion paper can be removed by allowing equivariant stabilizations; if so, the full equivariant stabilization uniqueness problem would reduce to a diagrammatic statement.
  • The quotient theorem effectively defines an orbifold trisection, so one could use these objects to probe whether a given quotient admits multiple smooth structures compatible with the quotient map, a question the paper leaves open.
  • The conjecture that every homologically trivial cyclic action on CP2 is linear can be translated into the statement that such actions admit genus-one equivariant trisections; a search for genus-one equivariant trisections of CP2 would therefore directly test the linearization conjecture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces G-equivariant trisections and G-equivariant bridge trisections for smooth finite group actions on closed orientable 4-manifolds, together with an equivariant version of shadow diagrams. The main existence theorem (Theorem 4.1) states that any finite group action and any collection of invariant surfaces can be accommodated by a G-equivariant trisection with the surfaces in equivariant bridge position. The paper further claims that equivariant (bridge) trisections are determined by their spines (Theorems 3.16 and 3.17), and that G-invariant shadow diagrams uniquely determine equivariant trisections (Proposition 3.20). It also develops quotient criteria (Theorems 5.1 and 5.8), gives many examples including branched covers, hyperelliptic involutions, and linear actions on CP^2, and classifies genus-zero and genus-one equivariant trisections, with a partial classification in genus two.

Significance. If the central claims are fully justified, this is a substantial contribution: it provides the first systematic equivariant trisection framework for finite group actions on 4-manifolds, with an explicit and detailed existence proof via a pentachoron decomposition (Proposition 4.3), a clean formulation of spine-determinism, and a diagrammatic calculus that would reduce equivariant 4-dimensional questions to 2-dimensional data. The quotient theorems and the rich collection of examples, including the Q8 branched-cover example and the PU(3)-equivariant trisections of CP^2, are valuable. The paper is transparent about its reliance on the companion preprint [MS25] for the equivariant Laudenbach-Poenaru input, and it openly flags limitations of that input in Section 8.2. However, the advertised reduction to shadow diagrams depends on a realization step that is not proved or cited, and this gap affects the central claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [3.3, Proposition 3.20(1)] The proof constructs from a G-invariant shadow diagram only the spine (H_i,T_i), and then states that this spine determines a well-defined G-equivariant (bridge) trisection by Theorems 3.16 and 3.17. Those two theorems are uniqueness/extension statements: they assert that two trisections with G-diffeomorphic spines are G-diffeomorphic, not that every G-invariant spine is realized by some G-equivariant trisection. The missing step is an existence statement for a linearly parted G-filling of Y_i = H_i ∪_Σ H_{i+1} extending the prescribed G-action on the spine. The cited results [MS25, Theorem 4.1(2)] and [MS25, Theorem 5.9(2)] are the uniqueness directions, and Section 8.2 explicitly notes limitations in the proof of [MS25, Theorem 5.9]. Unless a realization theorem is supplied or cited, the advertised reduction of 4-dimensional equivariant topology to G-invariant shadow diagrams is not justified; the same gap affects Corollaries 3.18 and 5.3 and the diagram-based constructions in Section 6.3.
  2. [7.2, Lemma 7.3] The proof of Lemma 7.3 asserts without further proof that "with respect to the G–action, H is an invariant tubular neighborhood of its core circle; i.e., G acts on H ∼= S^1 × D^2 preserving the product structure." This is the central structural fact needed to reduce finite group actions on a solid torus to the model (Z_m × Z_m) ⋊ Z_2, and it does not follow directly from the Equivariant Loop Theorem as invoked. Since Lemma 7.3 underpins Theorem 7.6 and Corollary 7.10 (the classification of genus-one equivariant trisections), please provide a full proof or a precise reference for the product-structure assertion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction, Definition 3.1] The heading "Defintion 3.1" contains a typo; it should read "Definition 3.1."
  2. [3.3, proof of Proposition 3.20(3)] The final sentence of the proof says "By part (1), this diagram can be used to recover T, establishing part (2)", but it should say "establishing part (3)".
  3. [3.2, proof of Corollary 3.11] The phrase "showing showing" is duplicated in the second paragraph of the proof.
  4. [5.2, proof of Corollary 5.3] The parenthetical "all linear actions on 3–balls are actions by rotations by Euler's Theorem" is only correct under the paper's standing assumption that all actions are orientation-preserving; a short clarifying sentence would prevent confusion.
  5. [4.1, Proposition 4.3] References such as "Figures 1.a, 1.b" are unconventional; using "panel (a)", "panel (b)", etc., would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the main existence theorem is proved from equivariant triangulations, and the spine-determinism results rely on a separate companion theorem rather than on the conclusions they are used to derive.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 4.1 constructs equivariant trisections directly from Illman's equivariant triangulations via the explicit S5-invariant pentachoron decomposition of Proposition 4.3, and the linearity of the sector actions is checked from the barycentric subdivision; no fitted parameter or predicted quantity is involved. The spine-determinism Theorems 3.16 and 3.17 and the shadow-diagram correspondence Proposition 3.20 invoke the authors' companion paper [MS25] for the equivariant Laudenbach-Poenaru extension and the boundary-parallel disk extension. This is a load-bearing self-citation, but [MS25] is a separate, parameter-free theorem whose stated assumptions do not include the existence of equivariant trisections or shadow diagrams; it is therefore independent evidence rather than a circular reduction. Section 8.2 flags a real limitation in [MS25, Theorem 5.9], namely that Theorem 3.17 gives uniqueness up to equivariant diffeomorphism rather than equivariant isotopy. That is a weakening of a possible stronger conclusion, and a support concern if the companion proof is incomplete, but it is not a case of the paper assuming what it purports to prove. Proposition 3.20(1) compresses the existence step into 'by Theorems 3.16 and 3.17,' which as printed are uniqueness statements; if the existence direction is not supplied by [MS25], this is an exposition gap, but the quoted text does not exhibit a definitional or statistical equivalence between the diagram input and the trisection output. The low-genus classifications and the examples are applications of the framework rather than renamed inputs. No self-definitional, fitted-input, ansatz-smuggling, or uniqueness-imported circularity appears.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard deep results in equivariant topology and on the companion paper [MS25] by the same authors. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced beyond the framework objects, namely equivariant trisections and shadow diagrams.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Illman's equivariant triangulation theorem (Ill78)
    Used in proof of Theorem 4.1 to ensure an equivariant triangulation exists and can include invariant surfaces.
  • standard math Equivariant Loop Theorem (Meeks-Yau/Edmonds, Theorem 3.6)
    Used in Lemma 3.9, Lemma 3.15, Lemma 7.3, and elsewhere to produce equivariant spanning disks.
  • standard math Smith Conjecture
    Used in Proposition 6.9 and Theorem 7.12 to conclude fixed sets of cyclic actions on S^3 are unknotted.
  • standard math Lange's Ball Quotient Theorem (Lan19), with smoothness via Perelman
    Used in Theorem 5.1 to characterize when quotients of linear actions on balls are balls.
  • domain assumption Equivariant Laudenbach-Poénaru theorem of [MS25, Theorem 4.1(2)]
    Assumed to prove Theorems 3.16 and 3.17; not proved in this paper.
  • domain assumption Equivariant Linearization Theorem and corollaries from [MS25, Theorem 3.5, Corollary 3.6]
    Assumed to ensure every finite group action on a 3-dimensional handlebody is linearly parted, used throughout.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Equivariant trisections for group actions on four-manifolds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VFAGWCR2

@misc{pith2026250117999,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Equivariant trisections for group actions on four-manifolds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VFAGWCR2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.17999}
}
abstract

Let $G$ be a finite group, and let $X$ be a smooth, orientable, connected, closed 4-dimensional $G$-manifold. Let $\mathcal{S}$ be a smooth, embedded, $G$-invariant surface in $X$. We introduce the concept of a $G$-equivariant trisection of $X$ and the notion of $G$-equivariant bridge trisected position for $\mathcal{S}$ and establish that any such $X$ admits a $G$-equivariant trisection such that $\mathcal{S}$ is in equivariant bridge trisected position. Our definitions are designed so that $G$-equivariant (bridge) trisections are determined by their spines; hence, the 4-dimensional equivariant topology of a $G$-manifold pair $(X,\mathcal{S})$ can be reduced to the 2-dimensional data of a $G$-equivariant shadow diagram. As an application, we discuss how equivariant trisections can be used to study quotients of $G$-manifolds. We also describe many examples of equivariant trisections, paying special attention to branched covering actions, hyperelliptic involutions, and linear actions on familiar manifolds such as $S^4$, $S^2\times S^2$, and $\mathbb{CP}^2$. We show that equivariant trisections of genus at most one are geometric, and we give a partial classification for genus-two.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.17999 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Decomposition of tetrahedron into star neighborhoods using the double barycentric subdivision. These figures are derived from the wonderful Wolfram Demonstration by Aleksandr Berdnikov [Ber24]. Proof. Let K denote the standard simplicial structure on ∂P, which consists of five tetrahedra T that meet along ten triangular faces F, ten edges E, and five vertices V . Let K′′ denote the double barycentric subdivision of … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A schematic illustrating how the Xi are decomposed based on the fun￾damental pieces V, E, F, and T at each depth level. The purple segments indicate the location of the linearly parting ball-systems Bi . Define X1 = V[0, 3 4 ] ∪ Y[ 3 4 ,1] and Γ1 = V[0,1]. Since V is the star neighborhood of V , it is clear that X1 is a neighborhood of Γ1 and is a 4–ball. Note that ∂Γ1 = V , and the neighborhood V of ∂Γ1 (restricted… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A schematic illustrating how the Hi (represented as black segments) arise as the intersections of the sectors Xi and Xi+1, which are decomposed based on the fundamental pieces V, E, F, and T at each depth level. We have H1 = (V ∩ E) [0, 1 4 ] ∪ (V ∩ (E ∪ T ))[ 1 4 , 3 4 ] ∪ (E ∪ T ) { 3 4 } . To identify H1 as the neighborhood of a graph γ1, notice that V ∩ E is a collection of disks; let BV∩E denote the barycenters… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Diagrams for the link L and some of its branched covers given by (x, y) 7→ (−x, −y) and the involutions with quotient space CP2 and CP2 are, respectively, (x, y) 7→ (y, x) and (x, y) 7→ (−y, −x).) Finally, consider the identity epimorphism ρ: Q8 → Q8. This covering spa…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The branched coverings of the link L ⊂ S 4 of projective planes corre￾sponding to the representations ρ: π1(S 4 \ ν(L)) → Q8 Considering the action on just N1(CP1 ), we see that the Q8 action respects the bundle structure in the sense that the base CP1 is left invarian…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: In particular, for (z1, z2) in the interior of the square, the fiber F(z1,z2) is parametrized by (θ1, θ2). The map µ is equivariant with respect to the component-wise (S 1 × S 1 )–action defined by rotating each factor around its z–axis along θi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figu…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Quotients of involutions of the genus-two trisection of S 2 × S 2 coverings. Each quotient manifold inherits a quotient Z2–action. For (1) and (3), this is the hyperelliptic involution of the torus, and for (2), this is rotation of the sphere through π radians; these a…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: S 2 × S 2 as the quotient of a Z3–action on T 2 × S 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: T 2 × S 2 as the quotient of a Z3–action on T 4 Again, we expect that one could verify that this Z3–action corresponds with a branched covering over three fibers, this time T 2 × {a, b, c} ⊆ T 2 ×S 2 ; however, the same caveats as before apply here. 6.4. P U(3)–equivar…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The octahedral graph Γ1 on CP1 (cyan), together with its dual graph Γ2 (orange), and a portion of the solid torus fiber π −1 (ν(m)) for a point m ∈ Γ1∩Γ2 We now calculate χ(Γe1), noting that we will have g(Σ) = g(H1) = 1−χ(Γe1) once we have defined H1. Let |OE(Γ1) | d…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Lifting the southern half of the octahedral graph on CP1 to the Hopf fibration of S 3 Presently, we’ll work with Γ1 as the octahedral graph, denoting the six vertices by {[1 : 0], [0 : 1], [1 : 1], [1 : −1], [1 : i], [1 : −i]} ⊆ CP1 , since for this choice there is a …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Four symmetries of the genus-two surface The D6–action can be seen as follows: take a Y –graph lying in an equatorial disk in a 3–ball, and consider the double; this gives a θ–graph in the 3–sphere. The action of D6 = D3 × Z2 is the product of the obvious D3–action on…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The genus-two equivariant trisections Case 2: G ∼= D6. Again, let T be a strongly minimal G–equivariant trisection, and let G′ = ⟨β⟩. This case is similar to the previous case, except that the local degrees are three and two, so β has no fixed points; cf [PITH_FULL_I…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    V. I. Arnol'd, The branched covering C P ^2 S^4 , hyperbolicity and projective topology , Sibirsk. Mat. Zh. 29 (1988), no. 5, 36--47, 237. 971226

    work page 1988

  2. [2]

    Ryan Blair, Patricia Cahn, Alexandra Kjuchukova, and Jeffrey Meier, Note on three-fold branched covers of S^4 , Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 74 (2024), no. 2, 849--866. 4748188

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Aleksandr Berdnikov, Star neighborhoods in double barycentric subdivision, http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/StarNeighborhoodsInDoubleBarycentricSubdivision/, January 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Bredon, Introduction to compact transformation groups, Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol

    Glen E. Bredon, Introduction to compact transformation groups, Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. Vol. 46, Academic Press, New York-London, 1972. 413144

    work page 1972

  5. [5]

    J. W. Cannon, Shrinking cell-like decompositions of manifolds. C odimension three , Ann. of Math. (2) 110 (1979), no. 1, 83--112. 541330

    work page 1979

  6. [6]

    Press, Somerville, MA, 2010, pp

    Weimin Chen, Group actions on 4-manifolds: some recent results and open questions, Proceedings of the G \"okova G eometry- T opology C onference 2009, Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2010, pp. 1--21. 2655301

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Patricia Cahn and Alexandra Kjuchukova , Singular branched covers of four-manifolds , arXiv e-prints (2017), arXiv:1710.11562

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Patricia Cahn , Gordana Matic , and Benjamin Ruppik , Algorithms for Computing Invariants of Trisected Branched Covers , arXiv e-prints (2023), arXiv:2308.11689

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    2, 1129 -- 1173

    Jonathan Dinkelbach and Bernhard Leeb, Equivariant Ricci flow with surgery and applications to finite group actions on geometric 3 --manifolds , Geometry and Topology 13 (2009), no. 2, 1129 -- 1173

    2009

  2. [10]

    Edmonds, A topological proof of the equivariant D ehn lemma , Trans

    Allan L. Edmonds, A topological proof of the equivariant D ehn lemma , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 297 (1986), no. 2, 605--615. 854087

    1986

  3. [11]

    Edmonds, Construction of group actions of four-manifolds, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 299 (1987), no

    Allan L. Edmonds, Construction of group actions of four-manifolds, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 299 (1987), no. 1, 155--170

    1987

  4. [12]

    Edmonds, A survey of group actions on 4-manifolds, Handbook of group actions

    Allan L. Edmonds, A survey of group actions on 4-manifolds, Handbook of group actions. V ol. III , Adv. Lect. Math. (ALM), vol. 40, Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2018, pp. 421--460. 3888625

    2018

  5. [13]

    Ronald Fintushel, Locally smooth circle actions on homotopy 4 -spheres , Duke Math. J. 43 (1976), no. 1, 63--70. 394716

    1976

  6. [14]

    49, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2012

    Benson Farb and Dan Margalit, A primer on mapping class groups, Princeton Mathematical Series, vol. 49, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2012. 2850125

    2012

  7. [15]

    Stern, Rational blowdowns of smooth 4 -manifolds , J

    Ronald Fintushel and Ronald J. Stern, Rational blowdowns of smooth 4 -manifolds , J. Differential Geom. 46 (1997), no. 2, 181--235. 1484044

    1997

  8. [16]

    Giffen, The generalized S mith conjecture , Amer

    Charles H. Giffen, The generalized S mith conjecture , Amer. J. Math. 88 (1966), 187--198. 198462

    1966

  9. [17]

    David Gay and Robion Kirby, Trisecting 4-manifolds, Geom. Topol. 20 (2016), no. 6, 3097--3132. 3590351

    2016

  10. [18]

    David Gay and Jeffrey Meier, Doubly pointed trisection diagrams and surgery on 2-knots, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 172 (2022), no. 1, 163--195. 4354420

    2022

  11. [19]

    C. McA. Gordon, On the higher-dimensional S mith conjecture , Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 29 (1974), 98--110. 0356073 (50 \#8544)

    1974

  12. [20]

    Gompf and Andr \'a s I

    Robert E. Gompf and Andr \'a s I. Stipsicz, 4 -manifolds and K irby calculus , Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 20, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1999. 1707327 (2000h:57038)

    1999

  13. [21]

    Ian Hambleton and Jean-Claude Hausmann, Conjugation spaces and 4-manifolds, Math. Z. 269 (2011), no. 1-2, 521--541. 2836082

    2011

  14. [22]

    Hirsch, Differential topology, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol

    Morris W. Hirsch, Differential topology, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 33, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994, Corrected reprint of the 1976 original. 1336822

    1994

  15. [23]

    Mark Hughes , Seungwon Kim , and Maggie Miller , Branched covers of twist-roll spun knots , arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv:2402.11706

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Algebra 116 (1988), no

    Ian Hambleton and Ronnie Lee, Finite group actions on P ^2( C ) , J. Algebra 116 (1988), no. 1, 227--242. 944157

    1988

  17. [25]

    Ian Hambleton, Ronnie Lee, and Ib Madsen, Rigidity of certain finite group actions on the complex projective plane, Comment. Math. Helv. 64 (1989), no. 4, 618--638. 1022999

    1989

  18. [26]

    S\" o ren Illman, Smooth equivariant triangulations of G -manifolds for G a finite group , Math. Ann. 233 (1978), no. 3, 199--220. 500993

    1978

  19. [27]

    Jason Joseph, Jeffrey Meier, Maggie Miller, and Alexander Zupan, Bridge trisections and classical knotted surface theory, Pacific J. Math. 319 (2022), no. 2, 343--369. 4482720

    2022

  20. [28]

    Willi Kepplinger, An algorithm taking K irby diagrams to trisection diagrams , Pacific J. Math. 318 (2022), no. 1, 109--126. 4460230

    2022

  21. [29]

    Kuiper, The quotient space of C P(2) by complex conjugation is the 4 -sphere , Math

    Nicolaas H. Kuiper, The quotient space of C P(2) by complex conjugation is the 4 -sphere , Math. Ann. 208 (1974), 175--177. 346817

    1974

  22. [30]

    Christian Lange, Characterization of finite groups generated by reflections and rotations, J. Topol. 9 (2016), no. 4, 1109--1129. 3620454

    2016

  23. [31]

    , When is the underlying space of an orbifold a manifold?, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 372 (2019), no. 4, 2799--2828. 3988594

    2019

  24. [32]

    Peter Lambert-Cole and Jeffrey Meier, Bridge trisections in rational surfaces, J. Topol. Anal. 14 (2022), no. 3, 655--708. 4493476

    2022

  25. [33]

    Peter Lambert-Cole, Jeffrey Meier, and Laura Starkston, Symplectic 4-manifolds admit W einstein trisections , J. Topol. 14 (2021), no. 2, 641--673. 4286052

    2021

  26. [34]

    Charles Livingston, Surfaces bounding the unlink, Michigan Math. J. 29 (1982), no. 3, 289--298. 674282

    1982

  27. [35]

    Fran c ois Laudenbach and Valentin Po \'e naru, A note on 4 -dimensional handlebodies , Bull. Soc. Math. France 100 (1972), 337--344. 0317343 (47 \#5890)

    1972

  28. [36]

    W. S. Massey, The quotient space of the complex projective plane under conjugation is a 4 -sphere , Geometriae Dedicata 2 (1973), 371--374. 341511

    1973

  29. [37]

    Morgan and Hyman Bass (eds.), The S mith conjecture , Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol

    John W. Morgan and Hyman Bass (eds.), The S mith conjecture , Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 112, Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, FL, 1984, Papers presented at the symposium held at Columbia University, New York, 1979. 758459

    1984

  30. [38]

    G. A. Miller, H. F. Blichfeldt, and L. E. Dickson, Theory and applications of finite groups, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1961. 123600

    1961

  31. [39]

    M. A. Miha ilova, Finite imprimitive groups generated by pseudoreflections, Studies in geometry and algebra ( R ussian), Kirgiz. Gos. Univ., Frunze, 1978, pp. 82--93. 608821

    1978

  32. [40]

    Jin Miyazawa , A gauge theoretic invariant of embedded surfaces in 4 -manifolds and exotic P^2 -knots , arXiv e-prints (2023), arXiv:2312.02041

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    London Math

    Darryl McCullough, Andy Miller, and Bruno Zimmermann, Group actions on handlebodies, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 59 (1989), no. 2, 373--416. 1004434

    1989

  34. [42]

    Jeffrey Meier and Evan Scott, An equivariant Laudenbach-Po\'enaru theorem , arXiv:2501.10524, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    William Meeks, III, Leon Simon, and Shing Tung Yau, Embedded minimal surfaces, exotic spheres, and manifolds with positive R icci curvature , Ann. of Math. (2) 116 (1982), no. 3, 621--659. 678484

    1982

  36. [44]

    Jeffrey Meier, Trent Schirmer, and Alexander Zupan, Classification of trisections and the G eneralized P roperty R C onjecture , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 144 (2016), no. 11, 4983--4997. 3544545

    2016

  37. [45]

    Montgomery and C

    D. Montgomery and C. T. Yang, Groups on S n with principal orbits of dimension n-3 . I , II , Illinois J. Math. 4 (1960), 507--517. 125902

    1960

  38. [46]

    Meeks, III and Shing Tung Yau, The classical P lateau problem and the topology of 3 -manifolds , Minimal submanifolds and geodesics ( P roc

    William H. Meeks, III and Shing Tung Yau, The classical P lateau problem and the topology of 3 -manifolds , Minimal submanifolds and geodesics ( P roc. J apan- U nited S tates S em., T okyo, 1977), North-Holland, Amsterdam-New York, 1979, pp. 101--102. 574258

    1977

  39. [47]

    , Topology of three-dimensional manifolds and the embedding problems in minimal surface theory, Ann. of Math. (2) 112 (1980), no. 3, 441--484. 595203

    1980

  40. [48]

    Jeffrey Meier and Alexander Zupan, Bridge trisections of knotted surfaces in S^4 , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 369 (2017), no. 10, 7343--7386. 3683111

    2017

  41. [49]

    43, 10880--10886

    , Bridge trisections of knotted surfaces in 4-manifolds, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (2018), no. 43, 10880--10886

    2018

  42. [50]

    3, 291--296

    Peter Sie Pao, Nonlinear circle actions on the 4 -sphere and twisting spun knots , Topology 17 (1978), no. 3, 291--296. 508892

    1978

  43. [51]

    Grisha Perelman, The entropy formula for the ricci flow and its geometric applications, arXiv:0211159, 2002

    2002

  44. [52]

    , Finite extinction time for the solutions to the ricci flow on certain three-manifolds, arXiv:0307245, 2003

    2003

  45. [53]

    , Ricci flow with surgery on three-manifolds, arXiv:0303109, 2003

    2003

  46. [54]

    Schwarz, Lifting smooth homotopies of orbit spaces, Inst

    Gerald W. Schwarz, Lifting smooth homotopies of orbit spaces, Inst. Hautes \' E tudes Sci. Publ. Math. (1980), no. 51, 37--135. 573821

    1980

  47. [55]

    Wasserman, Equivariant differential topology, Topology 8 (1969), 127--150

    Arthur G. Wasserman, Equivariant differential topology, Topology 8 (1969), 127--150. 250324

    1969

  48. [56]

    Wilczy\'nski, Group actions on the complex projective plane, Trans

    Dariusz M. Wilczy\'nski, Group actions on the complex projective plane, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 303 (1987), no. 2, 707--731. 902793

    1987

  49. [57]

    Marla Williams, Trisections of F lat S urface B undles over S urfaces , 81, Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 4144669

  50. [58]

    Bruno Zimmermann, Finite groups of outer automorphisms of free groups, Glasgow Math. J. 38 (1996), no. 3, 275--282. 1417356

    1996

  51. [59]

    , Genus actions of finite groups on 3 -manifolds , Michigan Math. J. 43 (1996), no. 3, 593--610. 1420594

    1996

  52. [60]

    thesis, Scuola N ormale S uperiore P isa, 2008

    Daniele Zuddas, Branched coverings and 4-manifolds, Ph.D. thesis, Scuola N ormale S uperiore P isa, 2008

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.